Taxi Driver Online

And, as I said in another thread, Wolverhampton council's web pages about applying to be an affiliated test centre and the online map of garages both seem to have disappeared, so something's obviously changed

The post from Mr Cerberus did catch my eye, and as SW says something has definitely changed.

Looking at the report pack for the committee meeting that, amongst other things, changed the PHV signage rules it's quite clear that things will change going forward. Assuming that all the stuff in the report was passed.

The interesting bit IMO is below.

30.0 Out of area training and inspections

30.1 Whilst the Council may not refuse an application from someone living elsewhere in the country, it does not proactively seek applications from elsewhere. The Council has never actively advertised nor requested the trade working outside Wolverhampton to apply for licences, it is now clear that two services facilitate that.

30.2 The Council offers training courses and vehicle inspections on Private Hire Vehicle Operator’s premises. This was proposed to reduce carbon emissions, as one trainer or inspector travelling to a location instead of 20 or 40 vehicles travelling to the Council’s offices has up to 97.5% reduced emissions.

30.3 However, feedback in the consultation has highlighted that this is attractive to operators outside of Wolverhampton as this service is not offered by many other licensing authorities. In many cases, it is more convenient and efficient to apply to Wolverhampton than the local licensing authority.

30.4 As such, it is proposed that all driver training and vehicle licence pre-requisite inspections are to be undertaken within the city limits. This will increase overall carbon emissions from those travelling to the city, however there will also be benefits to local businesses that are used by these visitors.

_________________
IDFIMH

So that's a total of 29,000 extra MOTs that are coming to the Wolverhampton MOT trade this year.

I'm 100% certain that will decline in the years to come, and what a good thing that is.

_________________
IDFIMH

MAIN CHANGES FROM 1 AUGUST:

• All private hire vehicle door operator signage approval withdrawn. Proprietor of the vehicle must remove the signage and drivers must not drive a vehicle with operator door signage.
• Operators must submit new approved A4 signage for the rear of the vehicle which cannot be magnetic. Drivers may only drive a private hire vehicle with this signage if you and all other drivers of that vehicle are in an exclusive relationship with that operator.
• Internal licence plate displaying licence number and passenger capacity is no longer required.
• Drivers may partner with multiple operators and do not need to notify Licensing Services. The exception to this is for any proprietors of WAVs.
• DBS certificates now required to be seen in person by Licensing Services.
• Drivers are required to undertake a daily walk-around check of their vehicle before driving.
• Drivers are required to notify Licensing of any new licences with any other licensing authority, as well as if they are reviewed, suspended or revoked.
• Assistance dogs are defined as: “not a pet, but a working service dog”. To evidence this, the dog must be wearing an identifying harness/jacket or its owner must be carrying certifying document.
• MOT certificates now accepted from any MOT station in the country.
• No age restriction on vehicles which have <75 CO2g/km emissions.

Thanks for that, MCF - I wonder why the council didn't issue a straightforward list like that rather than that press release last week?

But it's all looking murkier and murkier. Your list says all that's needed now is an MoT from any garage anywhere, which is what I was thinking from some sources, but which is totally at odds with Cerebrus's info (wherever that's sourced from), and also contradicts what Sussex flagged up in the agenda papers.

And I was looking at the new licensing policy document at the weekend, and info in there seemed to totally contradict the press release about the signage, but is consistent with your list above:

Could it be that they need an MOT and pit test?, so maybe pit test is local only

The webcast for the taxi report isn't that long, and everything in the report was passed.

https://wolverhampton.public-i.tv/core/ ... me/1828000

A few things of note to me in that webcast.

They have about 40,000 licensed drivers but didn't see any of them at the committee meeting.

Two out of the four councillors that spoke at the meeting, in respect of the report, didn't like the idea of binning off PH signage, including the Chair. Yet the committee still passed it.

The licensing official didn't satisfactorily answer the question as to why having no signage is going to help safety, other than saying London does it that way.

In respect of the MOT situation he did say it would be a MOT from anywhere, but the report that was passed indicates otherwise.

One thing that will make drivers think twice is the new rule that they must attend a training event in Wolverhampton every time they license. Should a driver have a one-year license then they will have to attend every year.

_________________
IDFIMH

The phrase that springs to mind when watching that webcast is ‘the tail wagging the dog’.

When a policy is adopted that directly effects 40,000 individuals, and indirectly millions, one would have thought the scrutiny would have been a lot more in-depth and a lot less nodding dog.

_________________
IDFIMH

the legislation that covers filming at a Council meeting excludes filming of the public seating area so that may explain why you didn't see any but of course i doubt that any would be there anyway.

This is the new HC and PH policy document here, which is essentially the new rule book, as far as I can see - another interesting thing is that for a new HC plate you need a brand new WAV, while PHVs can be licensed up to 12-years-old

https://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/sites/ ... 100724.pdf

And seems to indicate that only a new MoT is needed for a PHV plate [11(c) on page 8], and nothing whatsoever about where it should be done.

So basically all you need now for a Wolves PHV plate is a standard MoT from any garage anywhere

(And presumably no 'pit test', by which Cerebrus presumably means a test conducted directly by the council.)

I suspect they're now relying on this in terms of safety, which seems to be new:


And, I mean, check out the stuff on the walkaround link - like drivers are going to check all that every time they jump into their car

https://taxiwalkaround.wolverhampton.gov.uk/

Haven't read the Government's best practice guidance, but had a quick look at the testing stuff at the weekend, and it looks like the Wolves walkround checks are based on the best practice guidance at 6.13 here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -licensing

Which links to a model driver-vehicle checklist here. Got the impression from a quick look that it's a lot more comprehensive than the Wolves list, but in fact I think it's more or less the same, but maybe with some minor detail left out of the Wolves version:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... cklist.pdf

That seems to be one example of where Wolves has missed out some of the detail, and there may be others (can't be bothered going through it all).

But, like, say I filled my three-month old motor with petrol before heading home last night.

So next day I'm supposed to check the seal on the fuel filler cap isn't torn, perished or missing?

I mean, some of that stuff in the checklist would just about need a pit or ramps to carry out

The official stated that by requiring drivers to do those daily checks it would reduce the number of vehicles whose tyres were showing cords.

Can’t believe he is that naive to think drivers don’t know when their tyres are that bad.

_________________
IDFIMH

We used to have a daily walk around check sheet.
the drivers were supposed to fill the form in every day but obviously some would just tick the boxes at the end of the week before handing it in. It didn't make the vehicles any better but it did mean that if something went wrong the driver could be blamed for not reporting the fault on the check sheet.